Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 2287 2288 2289 2290 2291 2292 2293 2294 2295 2296 2297 2298 2299 2300 2301 2302 Next
Comments 114701 to 114750:
-
Ned at 03:58 AM on 24 July 2010What do you get when you put 100 climate scientists in a room?
30,000 scientists signed a petition opposing the Kyoto protocol Possibly, if you use an extraordinarily loose definition of the word "scientist". -
RSVP at 03:53 AM on 24 July 2010Rebutting skeptic arguments in a single line
KR "RSVP - The physics of CO2 and the greenhouse gas effect is logarithmic; for each doubling of CO2 levels an additional forcing of ~1 oC is expected." If this is true, then successive halving should reveal where temperatures would be without CO2. Lets do that... 350 / 2 = 175 (minus one degree) 175 / 2 = 87.5 (minus one more degree) 87.5 / 2 = 43.75 (minus one) 43.75 / 2 = 21.86 (minus one more) 21.86 / 2 = 10.94 (another degree less) 10.94 / 2 = 5.46 (one more) 5.46 / 2 = 2.73 (one more) 2.73 / 2 = 1.37 (one more) 1.37 / 2 = 0.68 (one more...) I have halved the CO2 ppm only nine times and am basically at zero ppm. According to your statement, my calculation is "incorrect", and yet taking what you are saying on face value also does not add up. One of us doesnt know what he is talking about. -
KR at 03:36 AM on 24 July 2010The nature of authority
johnd - cloud feedback, both as albedo changes and as additional IR entrapment (negative and positive feedback, respectively), is certainly an interesting issue. However, the discussions I've seen indicate that this cloud variability is fairly small - I believe the Lindzen and Choi paper has been shown to have serious analytic issues, and the cosmic ray/clouds hypothesis is junk, as it doesn't match temperature trends. I will point out, however, that if clouds greatly affected outgoing long wave radiation (LWR), that would show up directly in the top of atmosphere (TOA) readings as variability of readings for ground referenced points over time, as cloud cover changed. That would be a fairly straightforward analysis, and quite definitive - I haven't seen any papers on it yet, though. Anyone else? Have there been papers on this topic, of cloud induced variability in TOA outgoing energy? I greatly suspect, however, that given the majority of LWR is emitted from the top of the troposphere and stratosphere that the cloud variability mostly affects distributions in the lower troposphere, with the results averaging out and not affecting TOA radiation levels and hence the radiative balance. In order for clouds to have a trend effect, there would have to be a change in total cloud cover. There are papers on that, albeit many from Lindzen. There's an interesting paper by Warren et al, 1988, describing sea cloud coverage in the period 1952-1995, indicating observed small changes (+0.7% 1952-1981) in total coverage, although probably tied to low observation counts and poor geographic coverage in the earlier years (esp. WWII). They seem to conclude that any yearly trends are issues with the data, not real phenomena. There's a previous atlas showing land data - I haven't been able to find a link to that yet. So - no real evidence for cloud change trends there. -
NickD at 03:35 AM on 24 July 2010The nature of authority
@ RSVP at 03:30 AM on 24 July, 2010 I'll take that as a "no" to my asking for "extraordinary evidence" for your hyperbolic claim. You simply have personal anecdotes. Thank you for your response. -
RSVP at 03:30 AM on 24 July 2010The nature of authority
To NickD "Do you have extraordinary evidence which backs up your assertion that global skepticism amongst laypersons became an "avalanche" after the molehills you cited?" When I do get the chance to bore the uninitiated (i.e., "normal people") about AGW theory, they may not understand or remember any of the details, but what they do seem to know all about is an exaggerated version of Climategate, a molehill which seems to have stuck like mud. -
Phila at 03:29 AM on 24 July 2010The nature of authority
#9 Humanity Rules One could argue Steve McIntyre or even Monckton has been researching and banging on about their respective climate science interests that they have developed some level of expertise. Yes, one could argue that. The problem is, a lot of "skeptics" are quick to grant McIntyre and Monckton this expertise, while ignoring or insulting the expertise of thousands of scientists who've studied longer and worked harder, and -- most important -- are able to provide proof that McIntyre or Monckton have made basic errors. Because they haven't gone down a formal academic process does not necessarily invalidate that experience. Is No, it doesn't. But you know what does invalidate that experience? Being consistently wrong. There's a real world out there, and we can check certain kinds of theories and claims against it, and get a pretty good idea of which ones are closer to the truth. That's where McIntyre and Monckton fail, and the debate about their relative "expertise" is simply a faux-populist distraction from that basic fact. Ultimately, the proof that Monckton and McIntyre don't have the proper credentials is the fact that they consistently use the wrong methods and get the wrong results. You don't get to have it both ways. You don't get to claim that climate "expertise" is worthy of respect when Monckton sucks it up osmotically in his spare time, and then call it "groupthink" when it's earned in the traditional way. Maybe this point will be clearer to you if we get away from AGW for a moment. I don't think the AIDS/common cold/MS cure that Monckton's been working on is going to work. He's not a doctor or a virologist or anythig along those lines, and the chance that he's going to hit on a miracle cure for multiple diseases strikes me as vanishingly slim. I'm sure he'd claim to have developed some homegrown "expertise" on this subject, too, but what snake-oil salesman doesn't? It's possible that he's going to revolutionize modern medicine, just as it's possible that I'm going to be crowned Pope next year. But sensible people will bet the farm against it. -
gallopingcamel at 03:02 AM on 24 July 2010What do you get when you put 100 climate scientists in a room?
scaddenp (#93), I have many reasons for believing that mankind's influence on the climate is small, but that is not the point. This thread claims that "Over 97% of actively publishing climate scientists think humans are changing global temperature". The above claim may well be correct. My point is that the outcome would be reversed if the question was changed to include the phrase "Catastrophic Global Warming" and the participation were broadened to include all scientists. kdkd (#94), Like scaddenp you failed to address my point but since you have raised the subject of dishonesty, the MND piece opens up with an account of Al Gore's dishonesty in "An Inconvenient Truth" that was proven in a British court of law. Getting back to John Cook's straw poll, 30,000 scientists signed a petition opposing the Kyoto protocol. Most of the scientists I work with are highly sceptical about CAGW and several of them signed this petition, while I did not. Clearly it is not difficult to get many thousands of scientists to support statements that on the one hand reject the idea of catastrophic global warming and on the other hand point to the beneficial effects of carbon dioxide. http://www.petitionproject.org/index.php -
johnd at 02:58 AM on 24 July 2010The nature of authority
andrew adams at 21:33 PM, I think it is obvious by which authority, from the scientists themselves. There are some issues that are most central to understanding how the climate works but are poorly understood, the most obvious being clouds. Scientists themselves declare it an area that is poorly understood, yet clouds are a major influence where a small change can make a large difference over any time frame. Clouds are not the only area of contention, but the most obvious, and likely the most important. That poor scientific understanding is reflected here on this site with virtually no one able to debate the issue, most contributors steer well clear of the subject, possibly because there is little credible data that can be used to support a pro AGW point of view. -
dhogaza at 02:58 AM on 24 July 2010What do you get when you put 100 climate scientists in a room?
I think it's become obvious that TruthSeeker hasn't actually read Menne's paper and analysis, but rather is basing his comments on Watts claims. TruthSeeker, I hate to break this to you, but Watts highest degree is a high-school diploma, and while that doesn't mean that he might not be able to learn some basic algebraic and statistical techniques for data analysis, there is plenty of evidence that he hasn't. I read Menne and Watts' "rebuttal" and Watts is full of it. I'm not going to bother going back to re-evaluate Watts' "rebuttal", because I actually have some faith that you might be smart enough to figure out that he doesn't know squat on your own. Another thing for you to consider is that several people, including some in the skeptic camp, have spent the last six months or so coming up with their own surface station temperature reconstructions, using a variety of statistical techniques. And they all come up with numbers very close to GISSTemp. This was a surprise to some among the skeptic camp who apparently believed that their various "more valid" analyses would undermine GISSTemp. Watts has been promising us a paper for a couple of years now. Where is it? And BTW he admits his own incompetence in regard to analysis because he's stated that others will be doing his analysis for him. -
KR at 02:53 AM on 24 July 2010Models are unreliable
Pete Ridley - a 'scientific model' is a simplified system for making reasonable projections and exploring system interactions, especially useful when it's not practical to subject the real system to repeated tests and inputs. Evaluating a model takes into consideration several things: - Ability to match previous observations (historic data) - Ability to predict future observations - Ability to estimate different future states based on different inputs (Given 'A', predict 'B') - Match of model internal relationships to known physical phenomena - Simplicity (no nested 'crystal spheres' for epicycles) The 1988 Hansen model was, by current standards, fairly simple. Ocean heat content/circulation, ice melt rates, some additional aerosol information, etc., weren't in it. But it still shows close predictive agreement with inputs matched to what has happened since 1988! That's a pretty decent model. And no, it's not 1-to-1 agreement. Short term variation (a couple of years) is really weather, not climate. You need to make running averages of >10 years to average out the short term fluctuations and identify the climate trend. On a side note, you complain about reliability of surface temperature measures. That's a fairly common skeptic argument, and has been discussed here and here, as well as in a very recent topic on cherry picking data. The surface temperature measures are reliable - that argument really doesn't hold water. -
JMurphy at 02:48 AM on 24 July 2010The nature of authority
It's unbelievable the way the so-called skeptics can't accept reality and continue to repetitively repeat and regurgitate what they were led to believe would be the final 'final nail in the coffin of AGW'. It used to be just the 'hockey-stick' graph and now it's 'Climategate' - both were promised (by the so-called skeptical gurus - their particular brand of acceptable authority, to whom the so-called skeptics give total obedience) as the final proof against AGW, and their followers are still hanging onto those faith-based promises because they can't face up to accepting that they were lied to/misinformed/used/shown up/gullible. But here we have them repeated again - twice from one poster, as if there was a need to make it appear more 'real' : "Climategate and the subsequent IPCC-gates have started an avalanche of scepticism among lay people around the globe." Pete Ridley (Part I) "Climategate wasn’t spin, it was a scandal exposed by the leaked files and the enquiries held so far were simply whitewashes but they don’t lessen the scandal of the general public’s recognition of it." Pete Ridley (Part II) "The difficulty with this line is that public confidence has been damaged by Climategate, and the exaggerated claims by advocates like Al Gore are not being believed by the great unwashed who will have to pay for the radical changes to their energy sources." Ken Lambert The difference now, I suppose, is that these so-called skeptics want to try to make it appear that the general public are on their side in their disbelief. The truth, I believe, is quite the opposite, but that will be hard to accept for some - especially those who think it was a 'scandal', followed by a 'whitewash'. For goodness sake, get over it (especially the Al Gore obsession) and move on to something else that might have more substance - if you can find anything... -
andrew adams at 02:28 AM on 24 July 2010The nature of authority
Pete Ridley, The point I was making is that you made a specific claim about the state of our collective knowlege about what drives our climate, ie that our understanding in this area is very poor. But there is a large body of published science which shows that actually we do understand many of factors which influence our climate rather well. So if I'm to believe you and dismiss the scientific literature then I have to believe that you have some kind of authority on the subject. -
Philippe Chantreau at 02:25 AM on 24 July 2010What do you get when you put 100 climate scientists in a room?
"ad hominid (sic) attacks on his credibility." Well, I would certainly stop short of calling Watts an hominid. However, an attack on credibility is not an ad hom. I have zero knowledge of quilting. Zilch. If I was trying to make a technical comment and criticize others on how they do it, an attack on my credibility would be perfectly justified. It would not call into question my worth as a person (hence disqualifying it as ad-hom) but certainly would do so as a commenter on quilting. That would be fine. Watts history of posts demonstrate that he is not competent to analyze data. If he his, why is he not doing so? He's been at this for over 3 years, that's enough to partially store the bigger part of a degree in applied maths. Saying that he is not competent to analyze data is not an ad-hom. -
KR at 02:07 AM on 24 July 2010What do you get when you put 100 climate scientists in a room?
TruthSeeker - Watts put out some data, Menne analyzed it, and it's not normal peer review process to give the originator of the data refusal rights over your analysis. What Watt could do would be to (a) demonstrate that Menne's analysis was flawed (bad statistics, method, etc.), or (b) show that the more complete data, when analyzed a la Menne, results in different conclusions than the initial data set. He has yet to do either. Watt's current blog posting has not one bit of analysis of how his issues with the data collection affect the global temperature track as derived from the GISS data. That isn't to say that he might or might not have some points in his complaints about Menne's methods or personal interactions. But he has not yet analytically criticized Menne's results. -
Philippe Chantreau at 02:03 AM on 24 July 2010The nature of authority
About this: "we need better measurement and more years to find out what is really happening". It applies only because skeptics insist on levels of certainty and a reductionist approach that are both incompatible with complexity. If the same standards were applied to medicine, all progress would stall. Open a pharmacology book and note all the substances for which it is reported "mechanism of action unknown." -
NickD at 01:49 AM on 24 July 2010The nature of authority
Pete Ridley at 00:17 AM on 24 July, 2010 said, "Climategate wasn’t spin, it was a scandal exposed by the leaked files and the enquiries held so far were simply whitewashes but they don’t lessen the scandal of the general public’s recognition of it." Besides the ironic spin in your comment, I wanted to point out that, as a member of the general public having no ties to the scientific community (every bit the layperson), what I recognize as scandalous is that private emails were obtained without permission (generally recognized as "stealing"), and released to the general public. I find criminal activity to be generally scandalous. I tend to find, based on personal experience, the view expressed by Doug Bostrom to be much more accurate. Those who were already in-the-know with climate science generally fall into two camps. Those who are self-described "skeptics" tend to look at the the "Climategate" non-controversy as evidence confirming beliefs they already held. Those on the other side of the fence vary a bit from seeing some perhaps inappropriate comments that have little bearing on the larger picture, to being irate at the crime committed and the ensuing death threats, etc leveled at those involved. Those with no knowledge (people who have never heard of this site, WUWT, RC, etc) of climate science have probably never heard of CRU. At least that's my experience. Perhaps there are some facts and figures to back up your "avalanche" comment and subsequent similar assertions. I will continue to wait for them. -
shawnhet at 01:45 AM on 24 July 2010The nature of authority
Basically, we have one easy way to tell whether someone is an expert in science and when someone isn't: whether they can make a risky prediction that turns out to be true. If someone did "the work" and ended up no better at predicting what's going to happen than a guy on the street, should we still be listening to him? Cheers, :) -
shawnhet at 01:21 AM on 24 July 2010What do you get when you put 100 climate scientists in a room?
Skywatcher:"skywatcher at 19:06 PM on 23 July, 2010 #74 - shawnhet, your last sentence does not make any sense. There's a huge difference between distribution of heat and addition of heat. One can cause a long-term change in a system, the other can't." I don't understand you here. You'd originally started by saying that "I agree that Milankovitch cycles redistribute heat - but they do this globally - such as shifting insolation preferences from the NH to the SH, namely to a place where it cannot easily redistribute back". Now, presumably, Milankovitch cycles cause long-term changes in a system, so your latest position seems to disagree with your original position. As to my point vis a vis PDO and the temp trend, it is pretty easy to understand IMO. If we assume that X affects temperatures, and there is no trend in X, then it follows that X will not affect the temperature *trend*, but it doesn't mean that X doesn't affect temperature. Cheers, :) -
TruthSeeker at 00:51 AM on 24 July 2010What do you get when you put 100 climate scientists in a room?
#88 "The problem, however, is that the guy who collected the data (Watts) wasn't invited to "peer review" the paper. Which is the normal Peer Review process. " Splurf ... TruthSeeker, if I were drinking coffee when reading your post, you'd owe me a keyboard. There's no polite way to say this: you don't know what you're talking about." Maybe so, I didn't fully research that before I posted it. That, however, doesn't undermine the argument that Watt's makes regarding the quality of data that Menne used. In fact it is the same argument that undermine the Soon paper. I find it self serving to claim its bad for Soon but not for Menne. Like you all have said, I too am curious to see if Watt's gets a paper published. That being said, non of you point to where Watt's criticism of Menne's paper isn't valid. All you do is ad hominid attacks on his credibility, but you don't address the argument that Menne's paper is flawed based on a skewed and uncontrolled dataset. -
Ned at 00:34 AM on 24 July 2010CO2 effect is saturated
Hi, Daved. You're right, people do post links to that paper a lot. Fortunately, this site is here to help people quickly assess those kinds of claims. The short answer is that the "falsification" paper by G&T is just nonsense. You can find a rebuttal to it on this site at The greenhouse effect and the 2nd law of thermodynamics Or, if you want more depth, there's a lot of discussion of this at the website "Science of Doom": On Having a Laugh – by Gerlich and Tscheuschner (2009) On the Miseducation of the Uninformed by Gerlich and Tscheuschner (2009) and subsequent posts at Science of Doom. -
Doug Bostrom at 00:33 AM on 24 July 2010The nature of authority
Ken Lambert, if you read the home page of this site you'll notice that Skeptical Science is here in large part due to the odd phenomena of so-called climate change skepticism itself; the properties of "climate skeptics" are a topic of investigation and discussion. Posts focusing on such specimens as Monckton are entirely in keeping with the mission of the site. Regarding threads reaching stalemates, I'd offer that we'd like better precision for many measurements while at the same time noting that such precision and harmony as we do have among various data is quite sufficient to inform us that we are looking at a significant risk of and from climate change. Your final points about public opinion and money are spot-on for this site. "Climategate" was a synthetic and hollow matter, as confirmed by multiple investigations, but is turning out to be an interesting topic for social science researchers and thus an appealing topic for those who perceive "climate skeptics" as an intriguing subject of perusal. Preliminary results seem to show that the dominant and more durable effect of "climategate" has been to harden existing beliefs among so-called climate skeptics. The same research indicates that surprisingly few persons were actually aware of the matter at all, with awareness being concentrated among those already following the subject of climate change. Acceptance of "climategate" as a valid matter of concern is strongly correlated with ideology. Research also indicates that fortuitous timing between "climategate" and heavy snowfall in parts of the U.S. and Europe last winter exaggerated the impact of the matter but this effect is not expected to be durable. Your connection between money, mitigation, uncertainty and fear of loss is whether by coincidence or not exactly as though it had been taken from the playbook of the political consultant Luntz in his memorandum of a few years ago to the GOP. -
chris1204 at 00:23 AM on 24 July 2010The nature of authority
tobyjoyce @ 39: Some of the best portrayals of the subjective element in science have been described by the late great Stephen Jay Gould. He gives numerous examples of figures we now ridicule explaining how their views made eminent good sense from the perspective of their times. My favourite is his discussion of Archbishop Ussher's 1650 dating of the creation at 4004 BCE - Gould showers praise on Ussher's empirical approach to a difficult question, which apparently involved far more than mere extrapolation of biblical generations but included also cross-referencing to other historical data. He decries modern ridicule of what was excellent science for its time. Your reference to Watson and Einstein set me thinking. Watson's initial failure to give but the most marginal credit to Rosalind Franklin's critical role in the seminal Nature publication on the structure of the DNA molecule is perhaps more worrying than his lack of humility. Interestingly, this does not detract from the integrity of the science. Likewise, Franklin's seemingly much smaller footprint detracts not one iota from the scientific integrity underlying her pioneering work on RNA, an equally important molecule. Fortunately, the science of DNA and RNA however did not take placed in a highly charged socio-political context with major economic implications. However, AWG science does. Once money, politics, inflated egos, and plain cussed stubbornness enter the field, the equivalent of a culture war ensues in which truth is often the first casualty (pardon the cliche). In this context, I think some players (eg, Mike Hulme of UEA), are trying hard to rewrite the rules of engagement and move us into a more civilised space. I think their efforts deserve some recognition. -
TruthSeeker at 00:20 AM on 24 July 2010Rebutting skeptic arguments in a single line
Reply to # 63, 64, & 65. thanks for all your thoughtful responses. I still have a visceral concern with the fact that the only true measurable component is the manmade portion (I don't dispute the results of these measures). That being said, you all have provided many good points that I need to digest. Thanks for that. -
Pete Ridley at 00:17 AM on 24 July 2010The nature of authority
Phil (Scadden) ref. comment #24, no, Climategate wasn’t spin, it was a scandal exposed by the leaked files and the enquiries held so far were simply whitewashes but they don’t lessen the scandal of the general public’s recognition of it. On th ematter of climatemodels, lets keep that to the debate on the “How reliable are climate models?” thread. Andrew (Adams), I don’t believe that I have ever claimed to have any authority with regards to global climate processes and drivers but if you think that I have then please show me where. I do have opinions on the subject after having read a lot about it and, like yourself, am at liberty to express them. Best regards, Pete Ridley -
NickD at 00:08 AM on 24 July 2010The nature of authority
Pete Ridley at 16:48 PM on 23 July, 2010 says, "Climategate and the subsequent IPCC-gates have started an avalanche of scepticism among lay people around the globe." That's a very strong statement. I'm skeptical, as you provide zero evidence to back up this extraordinary claim. Do you have extraordinary evidence which backs up your assertion that global skepticism amongst laypersons became an "avalanche" after the molehills you cited? @ Arkadiusz Semczyszak at 20:21 PM on 23 July, 2010 I am with Philipe on this one. I simply don't comprehend the conclusion you have alluded to based on the out of context quote you cite. Could you elaborate? -
Ken Lambert at 23:59 PM on 23 July 2010The nature of authority
Tobyjoyce #39 I thought that Freeman Dyson was doing a pretty good job of: "stepping up to defy the conventional climate science wisdom from within". Interesting that the last 10-12 topics on this blog have strayed from discussions about the harder science and into all sorts of areas such as personalities like Monckton & Abraham , links to creationism, 97% of scientists in a room etc. I wonder what happened to the robust blockbuster arguments about the real effect of CO2, water vapour, aerosols, TSI, TOA, OHC, SLR, energy balance etc?? Maybe it is because the deeper these technical discussions go, the more the lack of knowledge and robust measurement in vital areas of climate science are exposed. Several of these threads have petered out with a stalemate ending in something like: "we need better measurement and more years to find out what is really happening". When met with this situation, the fall back position of this blog and the 'AGW consensus' is to say we don't have all the answers, but need to take radical action just in case what we claim is right. The difficulty with this line is that public confidence has been damaged by Climategate, and the exaggerated claims by advocates like Al Gore are not being believed by the great unwashed who will have to pay for the radical changes to their energy sources. -
KR at 23:34 PM on 23 July 2010Rebutting skeptic arguments in a single line
RSVP - The physics of CO2 and the greenhouse gas effect is logarithmic; for each doubling of CO2 levels an additional forcing of ~1 oC is expected. This is because of the Gaussian/Lorentzian bandpass of CO2; the center of the bandpass may be entirely saturated, but with each doubling the width of the absorbed band expands. Positive feedback (primarily H2O, also CO2 cycle) will likely amplify that to ~3-3.5 oC. So a 40% increase only leads to about half a degree in CO2 forcing, ~1.5 oC with all feedbacks (many of which are slow, still in progress). Your calculation is therefore incorrect. Radiation vs. heat flow: There is a constant confusion in terms that comes into play here. Heat (total energy) flows (at some rate) from hot objects to cold ones. However, energy flows in both directions, from hot to cold and (in smaller amounts) from cold to hot via radiation and conduction. "Heat flow" is the net energy exchange. The presence of a cold object makes a warm one lose energy slower then it would be if it were instead facing 3 oK empty space. What I was trying earlier to point out is that it's important not to confuse the parts (radiative and other transfer elements) with the whole (heat flow). The science is extremely well established for radiative equilibrium, also here for thermal radiation and heat flow, dating back to the late 1700's - part of the discussion where caloric theory was dropped as a concept. This confusion in terms, however, seems to be a matter of eternal recurrence... -
batsvensson at 23:28 PM on 23 July 2010What do you get when you put 100 climate scientists in a room?
What is the definition of a 'climate scientists'? -
tobyjoyce at 23:06 PM on 23 July 2010The nature of authority
chriscanaris, @35, I take your point, but the great scientists I mentioned (Feynmann, Watson, Einstein) would have been downright losers in a "most humble" competition. Einstein refused ever again to submit a paper to "Physics Review Letters" because it dared to send one of his 1930s papers for peer review. If you are talking about Newton's "standing on the shoulders of giants" type of modesty, then I think all great scientists partake of that. Every scientist needs to know that their theories are contingent and not final, and that type of modesty is a necessity. ALL of out judgments are subjective. Philospohers of science speak about observations being "theory-laden", something even Darwin admitted. Science makes effort to shrug off the subjectivity by statistical tests, by insisting on replication of experimental or model results, by peer-review, and by discussion. Science, like you (and me, a bit!), does learn from its mistakes. The fact is no Watson, Einstein or Feynmann has stepped up to defy the conventional climate science wisdom from within. That speaks volumes to me. Imagine the glittering prizes that would await the scientist who did that successfully - not to mention the sheer intellectual satisfaction. -
Philippe Chantreau at 22:55 PM on 23 July 2010What do you get when you put 100 climate scientists in a room?
"If we're wrong - is the money will be lost ... " Well, that was the modus operandi for a while with the world's banking industry and Wall Street. Funny enough, it still is to a large extent, even though they were wrong. We might as well try it with the energy industry, at least there would be a bunch of good reasons to do so. -
Daved Green at 22:49 PM on 23 July 2010CO2 effect is saturated
Hi ok ive realised from google searching that someone is posting this in just about any blog they can and by the body of the post it seems to be the same person . thanks Dave -
Philippe Chantreau at 22:47 PM on 23 July 2010The nature of authority
Arkadiusz, on this post #32 http://www.skepticalscience.com/The-nature-of-authority.html#19183. What logic you may use there escapes me. -
Daved Green at 22:17 PM on 23 July 2010CO2 effect is saturated
Hi How can these guys be right “Falsification of the Atmospheric CO2 greenhouse effect within the frame of physics” by Gerhard Gerlich and Ralf D. Tscheuschner , Ive beeen looking for rebuttals to there paper but now luck so far can anyone help ? thanks Dave -
chris1204 at 22:13 PM on 23 July 2010The nature of authority
Arkadiusz, I'm happy to see you posting particularly since we're talking about the nature of authority. A few weeks ago, you referred to Polish scientists/ scientific bodies who did not endorse the AGW consensus. Another poster put up a link to the December 2007 statement of the Polska Akademia Nauk (Polish Academy of Sciences) which they believed supported the consensus. I happen to be reasonably fluent in Polish despite my Greek surname, Ghanaian childhood, and Australian nationality (a long story - 1939 and all that). I naturally looked up the document - the document strongly endorsed the 'consensus.' I asked if you knew of any more recent statements or statements from other bodies supportive of your stance. I was disappointed by your non-response. -
John Brookes at 22:09 PM on 23 July 2010The nature of authority
adelady at 19:50 PM on 23 July, 2010 I think you hit the nail on the head. How dare we tell the opposition that it would take them years of work to be qualified to understand this stuff well! It is very anti-democratic - isn't it? -
chris1204 at 22:06 PM on 23 July 2010The nature of authority
tobyjoyce at 19:46 PM on 23 July, 2010 Massimo Piglucci's five useful steps are eminently sensible. However, no matter how much we try, a subjective element enters into our evaluations of all situations. For example, one often speaks in science of an elegant experiment. RSVP's call for humility is thus timely indeed. Looking back over my career, I can think of all too many errors of judgment. I don't make quite so many now (I hope!!!!!). -
magaret.wang at 22:03 PM on 23 July 2010It's Urban Heat Island effect
well, i may not as professional and presice as all of you commented on the issue above, and i don't really know the jargon you are talking, but i would like to ask several important questions based on logics, becasue i also interested in the matter, but due to the lack of basic tools and information i could not present a whole image to all of you. my points as as follow : 1. do you think that the sun is the major energy resoure of the surface of the earth (no matter in which form it store,like coal, oil, living creatures, organic matters,carbohydrate...and so on)beside the nuclear reaction the core of the earther is under going and before we discovered and stareted to use nuclear energy? 2.If you do belive that the sun is the major energy supplier to the earther surface, then where those engergy the surface of the earth from the sun got go? It dissapeared by it's self or they just stored in other form rather the heat? 3.Yes i do believe the urben area is much hotter than the rural area, but does that mean UHL is the major contributor to global warming? becuae we all know that about 71% of the earth surface is cover by water, and the propotion of rurual area must be more than times to urban area(according to an estimation rurual area only account for 3% of the earth surface, even if the average tempreture of the urban area is 10 times than the other part of the world , the average tempreture rise it can cause if is only 0.27 centidegree. 4.Look at the the energy we realised from the engery store in other form the near 100 yeas, i think it's not a big quesiton to understand glob warming Got to go, to be continue next time if i were bump into this forum agian next time. -
andrew adams at 21:43 PM on 23 July 2010The nature of authority
MattJ, How did he miss his own error here? His own example of his father making dogmatic statements to him shows there is no such division. After all, when a parent tells their kid to go to bed by such and such time or take a bath, that decision too is based on experience: kids need to go to bed earlier than they want, or they don't get enough sleep, and end up cranky the next day; they need hygiene, which need they generally never appreciate, not even after its neglect leads them to serious skin diseases. We would certainly hope that a parent would give instructions to their children based on such considerations, but not everyone is a good parent and sometimes people either don't have such a good understanding of, or simply neglect, their children's best interests. Ultimately a parent's authority is arbitrary because they posses it merely by virtue of being a parent and no one has to prove their fitness or suitability for parenthood beforehand (unless they are adopting I suppose) so I think it is fair for Graham to make the distinction. -
andrew adams at 21:33 PM on 23 July 2010The nature of authority
Pete Ridley This has not been achieved by scientists trying to predict future climates because the processes and drivers of global climates are horrendously complex (verging on the chaotic) and are presently very poorly understood. Reliable analysis and prediction of global climates is impossible due to the significant scientific uncertainties. So what authority do you have for your claim regarding our very poor understanding of the drivers of global climate? -
Arkadiusz Semczyszak at 20:21 PM on 23 July 2010The nature of authority
Gavin Schmidt once said: “if we are talking about global warming, I am probably the most criticized man in the world (...), why I stopped reading articles about me ...” Is this the reason (may be) that the theory of AGW is false? -
RSVP at 20:11 PM on 23 July 2010The nature of authority
Human imagination conceived of the myth Atlas, a human- like figure holding the entire world on his shoulders. With full knowledge of this impossibility, mankind now attempts to treat the entire planet as just one more device under test. The problem is not a lack of authority as much a lack of modesty, which when found will do more for this cause. -
Arkadiusz Semczyszak at 20:00 PM on 23 July 2010What do you get when you put 100 climate scientists in a room?
@Chris „Natural internal variations (e.g. ocean currents like the PDO/AMO) can pretty much only redistributed heat.” “But one would have to conjure up some rather extraordinary thermodynamic arguments to satisfy a notion of persistent accumulation of heat into the climate system by internal variations!” This is not the whole truth. AMO affects the accumulation of energy in the oceans, water vapor content in the atmosphere (the main greenhouse gas), albedo (the desert - and the increasing amount of dust in the atmosphere - such as the Sahara - in the negative phase of the AMO - the vast ash cloud reaching up to America; positive AMO - a significant drop in the number and extent of dust and surface area of the Sahara and the duration of the retention period of snow, keeping the leaves on the plants, the growing season, etc.), ENSO - including water vapor and the quantity of sea (plankton) sulfurous cloud condensation nuclei - the clouds ... - I probably not omitted anything important ... Subsequent cycles of AMO, PDO are different in time (duration: 50 - 90 years) and the range of the temperature anomalies. We are talking about the so-called: cyclical occurrence of extreme El Nino .... Even the IPCC report, in assessing these factors, it is said has a huge range of uncertainty ... -
Arkadiusz Semczyszak at 19:57 PM on 23 July 2010What do you get when you put 100 climate scientists in a room?
I agree to the consensus - for convenience - if it does not slow down (necessary in the scientific process) the process of falsification - skeptical "treatment" theory of AGW. “Also, even if AGW was disproved tomorrow, I'd still argue for a reduced reliance on fossil fuels on the basis of *general* pollution & resource sustainability!” The current problem is in how fast warming will proceed (called "second floor"). If very fast (here, I believe that will not be collected up to 50 "white" scientists in the room - so minded), the major resources should be allocated to the CCS (there is no other way to the rapid reduction of CO2). If we're wrong - is the money will be lost ... If the warming will be slower (and it is much more than he wants IPCC), we should (mostly) spend money on alternative energy sources - it's never hurt us. As noted by Marcus, fossil fuels have many other serious defects. So I agree - I am the "white" in the room. I'll have less problems with getting money for research. And the truth, and so once ... But if I am to be fair to the arguments of those who say: "for the current warming corresponds to the natural cycle of warming, much more than the IPCC says - convincing me. These are often carried out very precisely, logical processes of evidence. -
adelady at 19:50 PM on 23 July 2010The nature of authority
"I think part of the resistance to authority is the feeling that nobody's better than me." But I think that links up with the anti-intellectualism, people really want to believe that they can read a magazine or a blog and *know* stuff as well as someone who's put in years. The intellectual stuff is the hardest because it's not like other activities. We all know how likely it is that we'll be seeded at Wimbledon or invited to perform at Carnegie Hall or produce a better chocolate cake than someone who's won every cake competition she's ever entered or all those other obvious external things. We can't kid ourselves so we yield to others' judgments about these people's expertise. When it comes to knowing things a lot of people seem to resent the fact that knowledge and skill (in something like maths) is difficult to acquire at higher levels. The perennial scorn for "ivory tower" academics seems to have exploded into a need, in some people, to show that they're just as capable as someone who's "wasted their lives with their head in a book". As for comparisons, many of these denier people are pretty clever. I think it's hard for some who've usually been among the cleverest people in their own circle to acknowledge that others are much, much cleverer and have done a lot of work to use and enhance their capacity. It's a bit like Monday morning quarter-backing. But it gets nasty when people really believe that the team should be following their instructions rather than the coach's. -
tobyjoyce at 19:46 PM on 23 July 2010The nature of authority
I am not fully at ease with this, and I hope I can explain why. Yes, it is true that the scientific consensus is the place to start always when researching a topic. I am sure a large proportion of contrarians read McIntyre and Watts because they find them politically congenial. However, they are then unwilling to engage with the science. We are probably unduly influenced by the first person to explain something to us. However, science contains enough of the subversive and the rebellious to make us cautious about "scientific authority". I am thinking of the young Feynmann, James Watson or Einstein who were not afraid to challenge the establishment of their day. So we should never hesitate to question authority. However, at some point we must decide and put scepticism aside. As I once said in a response on WUWT (to which no one responded) "Even Doubting Thomas had a bottom line". Massimo Piglucci Nonsense on Stilts gives 5 very useful steps to check out expertise in fields where we ourselves have little or none: (1) Examine the arguments of the experts. Piglucci points out that we may not have the expertise to critique the fine points. (2) Look for internal consistency and agreement among the experts. (3) Seek independent advice that the expert is an expert! (4) Ask questions about possible biases. (5) Look at the track record of the expert. We could apply these to (say) a doctor who is recommending a particular course of treatment to a loved one or to ourselves. I think climate scientists measure up very well to Piglucci's criteria, while the contrarian "experts" do not do well at all. -
chris1204 at 19:40 PM on 23 July 2010The nature of authority
scaddenp at 13:55 PM on 23 July, 2010 As best as I can tell, the Deep Climate post deals with statistical issues as they relate to the Climategate emails and McIntyre's citation of these. A commentator writing in response to an earlier post indicated that discussion of these emails was off limits on this site. I don't know whether that is true or not. In any case the whole debate over who wrote what and why in response to what seems utterly Byzantine complexity and somewhat beyond the limited capacity of my prefrontal cortex :-). I hope I'm not violating rules by going over these issues but McIntyre's principal beef all along seems to have been with the validity of statistical methodology (very much his field of expertise) and reluctance to share data and code. The various enquiries have exonerated the folks at UEA of misconduct and upheld the integrity of their scientific work. However, some criticism of lack of interaction with the statistical community and willingness to share information seems a consistent theme in the enquiries. As far as I'm concerned, that's exactly where I would want to leave the issues. Indeed, my recollections of the Guardian debate if they serve me well suggest a consensus that in reality there nothing sinister to hide and that openness from the outset would have avoided an awful lot of unpleasantness. Incidentally, you say: 'And as to media - well seeing the reporting about anything you have been involved in should give you a healthy dose of skepticism.' Incidentally, I've been involved in a number of matters which attracted substantial media attention (not much in recent years, thank God). The issues being reported on were not politically charged but related to some complex criminal matters. I was surprised at the time by the accuracy and fairness of some (obviously not all) of the media reporting. -
Sheila at 19:17 PM on 23 July 2010The nature of authority
I think part of the resistance to authority is the feeling that nobody's better than me. This strikes me as muddled. Better in what sense? I consider myself a better person than drug barons and paedophiles, so obviously I believe that some people are better than others. Since there's 6,700,000,000 people on this plant (give or take) I have to admit it's unlikely that I'm the best of the lot. I'm not likely to be the smartest, either. Or the most knowledgeable on any given subject. I think the point is that nobody has more rights than I do. That doesn't mean everybody is equally qualified to judge the science behind climate change. And 97% of the active climate scientists say climate change is real, serious, and caused by human activity. -
RSVP at 19:09 PM on 23 July 2010Rebutting skeptic arguments in a single line
"KR Please - if you want to promote (as you apparently do) the idea of waste industrial heat causing global warming, then look at the numbers. It just doesn't add up." I am not sure why you say this. From what I have read here, GHG's have brought temperatures up on Earth some 30 Kelvin from where they would be otherwise. An increase of 100ppm CO2 due to humans with respect to an original 250ppm (or thereabout) represents a 40% increase. Based on the most simplistic notions of proprotionaly, the "numbers" dictate something closer to a (0.4 x 30 = 12) twelve degree increase which is obviously not being detected. Aside from the "numbers", in earlier discussions there have been those defending AGW while at the same time asserting that radiation and heat transfer have nothing to do with each other. There seems to be general misconceptions on quantum electrodynamics that are affecting biases in a big way. Furthermore, if the science is so well established, what exactly needs to be discussed? -
skywatcher at 19:06 PM on 23 July 2010What do you get when you put 100 climate scientists in a room?
#74 - shawnhet, your last sentence does not make any sense. There's a huge difference between distribution of heat and addition of heat. One can cause a long-term change in a system, the other can't. -
Marcus at 18:51 PM on 23 July 2010The nature of authority
"Climategate and the subsequent IPCC-gates"? Oh that's just too funny for words. In spite of the attempts by the Right-Wing Media to get mileage out of the e-mails (obtained via a CRIMINAL ACT, I might add), the reality is that it turned out to be a massive storm-in-a-teacup. Even the most Right-Wing media outlets have since dropped the story-leaving just the Right-Wing conspiracy Websites to go on about it (which is essential for them given the lack of any contrary evidence to AGW). Similarly, all of the alleged errors of the IPCC-again highlighted by the Right-Wing press-have likewise proven to have precious little substance. The so-called "avalanche of skepticism" that you claim has actually ceased to materialize-all that happened was that the Denialists become even more convinced of the existence of this non-existent conspiracy. I'm just waiting to hear about when the hackers will be arrested & charged. I've almost no doubt that they have close links to the same organizations that give Oxygen to the likes of Watts, Plimer & Monckton.
Prev 2287 2288 2289 2290 2291 2292 2293 2294 2295 2296 2297 2298 2299 2300 2301 2302 Next
